After the points made yesterday, I will conclude my comments about last week's European Council and what I have described as some of the considerations creating controversy. These considerations are creating controversy in the sense that they express what the European political class is not saying overtly but what they do actually sometimes think.
First point: the president of the Commission, José Manuel Barroso, was given solid support (especially by the unanimous support of European Council and by the majority group at the European Parliament) but was at the same time sharply attacked and criticised. This is normal in an election campaign. One Socialist MEP explained that he wanted to give voters valid reasons why they should vote for his list rather than another. This is logical but two considerations should not be left out.
Commission presidency and the public. First of all, we need to find out whether the Commission president represents any alienation from the public or actually reflects, to a certain extent, the prevailing winds. In a period where most people vote for the centre-right, would it be appropriate for the president of the Commission to be close to other political tendencies, whether they are from the left or right? He would be in danger of being in constant conflict with the European Council, a situation that would not be very compatible with the efficient running of the EU. Previous presidents who have left the most significant imprint on European construction have always drawn their support from the very influential heads of government. Political courage, firm convictions, imagination and an ability to convince are needed to make a good president but to say that he should be flowing against the tide of public opinion would be populist and reckless.
A modified role. Second consideration: the rise in power of the European Parliament partly changes the Commission's role in the shaping of Community legislation, which is increasingly the result of negotiations between the Council and EP. This is a positive development because it strengthens European democracy, although it partly changes the role of the Commission. It is essential that the latter retains its exclusive right of initiative because only the Commission at the outset possesses an overview of the sometimes contradictory interests of member states and can assess in advance the economic and social positions that have broadly been consulted. Its role is still essential in EP/Council negotiations and the elaboration of compromises but it is essentially becoming a mediator, which is, in fact, the term already used by commissioners in certain cases. It is curious that MEPs criticise and oppose this positive development for the EP's legislative power.
The hunt for declarations or views, expressed by the current president in the very often distant past, is meaningless. We are not born a European, we become one and experience in Brussels consolidates and strengthens convictions and sometimes creates genuine vocations. I could quote some of the most spectacular cases.
Reality and demagogy. My second remark that creates some waves involves paragraph 36 in the Conclusions. In them, the European Council affirms that “there is an urgent need to intensify efforts to prevent and efficiently combat illegal immigration at the EU's southern borders”. Everyone is aware, even heads of state and government, that it is easier to obtain praise and approval from well-meaning souls for defending illegal immigrants than by expressing the determination to prevent and combat illegal immigration flows. All responsible political leaders know what disasters, blackmail and encouragement for cruel and ignoble trafficking are provoked by any fainthearted approach in this domain. The European Council calls for “a decisive European response, based on firmness, solidarity and shared responsibility”.
Human rights organisations must continue to denounce illegal and cruel behaviour and defend the rights of asylum seekers, and the European Parliament has to exercise its powers produced by the system of co-decision with the Council. Europe, however, as one Socialist minister explained in the past, “cannot carry all the woes of the world on its back”. Legality must be re-established and Europe must be aware that any laxness in behaviour would create a “flow of air” that would infinitely multiply illegal entries and endanger member states' social policies by making their funding impossible, to the detriment of the most disadvantaged groups in European society. I did say at the beginning that these considerations are controversial. The European Council requested (paragraph 37), “resolute action to efficiently fight organised crime and criminal networks involved in human trafficking”. This is a burning issue and we'll have to come back to it.
(F.R../transl.rh)